Unfreaking believable. This is one of those few occasions when the road rules are clear

Road Safety Road Rules 2009 (Vic) wrote:269 Opening doors and getting out of a vehicle etc.(3) A person must not cause a hazard to any person or vehicle by opening a door of a vehicle, leaving a door of a vehicle open, or getting off, or out of, a vehicle.

So while it's not always the driver's fault, that's because sometimes it is a passenger that opens the door.

It is scary that three presumably licenced drivers are neither educated nor aware of the requirements of the road rules.

hmmm, not sure how "reckless" cycling can be the cause of being doored. One might be able to argue that cyclist are riding too fast when there is that stupid bike lane with the car parking on the inside.

Victorian road rule 269 puts the onus squarely and unequivocally on the person opening the door to ensure that doing so does not constitute a hazard to any other person or vehicle.

"Road Safety Road Rules 2009 (Vic):269 Opening doors and getting out of a vehicle etc.(3) A person must not cause a hazard to any person or vehicle by opening a door of a vehicle, leaving a door of a vehicle open, or getting off, or out of, a vehicle."

In the interest of balance, I and every other cyclist would like you to counsel these two newsreaders on a correct understanding of the road rules, re-run the interview, and issue a correction to these erroneous statements.

Having been, as a cyclist, on the receiving end of deliberate driver misbehaviour that has required ambulance assistance to hospital, I am equipped to tell you this kind of misinformation has a real and adverse impact on cyclist safety through driver attitudes.

I am particularly disgusted at the inference that the safety of a vulnerable group should not be taken as seriously because of the misbehaviour of a minority within it. Try making the same kind of statement with regard to aboriginals, Jews or gays and see the storm that (justifiably) erupts.

To see this kind of out-group villification from the ABC is enormously disappointing.

Had this discussion with the husband of a colleague...... a police officer. Most disturbing to hear a serving police officer argue that often it is not the driver/passenger's fault if a cyclist hits an opened car door He was trying to suggest that cyclists are required to keep clear, once a car door has been opened. Pretty dodgy hair-splitting to my way of thinking.

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.

il padrone wrote:Had this discussion with the husband of a colleague...... a police officer. Most disturbing to hear a serving police officer argue that often it is not the driver/passenger's fault if a cyclist hits an opened car door He was trying to suggest that cyclists are required to keep clear, once a car door has been opened. Pretty dodgy hair-splitting to my way of thinking.

he's not a police officer so much as a motorist who is reluctant to accept responsibility for ensuring other road users' safety. for the record, i think he's right that cyclists have an obligation to steer clear of an open door, when it's been opened for long enough to allow that. but who in their right mind would ride into a door like that? the reality is, these crashes happen when doors are opened unexpectedly into the paths of cyclists. we know that of course. these sorts of comments also hint at a reason for the frequent reluctance of police to enforce the rule. we have a long way to go, sadly.

jules21 wrote:for the record, i think he's right that cyclists have an obligation to steer clear of an open door, when it's been opened for long enough to allow that. but who in their right mind would ride into a door like that? the reality is, these crashes happen when doors are opened unexpectedly into the paths of cyclists. we know that of course.

Hope I'm not taking your comments out of context here, but it needs to be remembered that it's not usually the collision with the door that kills, but being run over by vehicle in the next lane as you either swerve to miss the door or get bounced out onto the roadway.

The guy who was the subject of the inquest died that way, as did the young British nurse in NZ, and my late cousin's riding buddy in Old Bar NSW.

So, yeah, if I couldn't brake in time I'd choose to hit the door ... and hopefully use the old fart who opened it as cushioning. Better that than becoming road pizza.

trailgumby wrote:Hope I'm not taking your comments out of context here, but it needs to be remembered that it's not usually the collision with the door that kills, but being run over by vehicle in the next lane as you either swerve to miss the door or get bounced out onto the roadway.

i certainly understand that, but that wasn't what i was referring to. my point was that in many cases:1. motorist looks to see if coast is clear.2. motorist opens door if coast is clear.3. motorist proceeds to unload kids/shopping/drugs from car while door is left open, trusting that any traffic approaching them will take appropriate action (no different to approaching a parked car blocking your lane).

in that circumstance, in my view, there is nothing dangerous about the motorist's actions and the onus should be on other traffic (inc. cyclists) to ensure a safe outcome.

Yeah, perfect from bs. I thought about his salmoning comment this morning though, as a driver pulled out from the left coming towards me, and her door flew open. She did grab it, but it might have been interesting if I'd been 10m closer. So they can get you either direction.

il padrone wrote:Had this discussion with the husband of a colleague...... a police officer. Most disturbing to hear a serving police officer argue that often it is not the driver/passenger's fault if a cyclist hits an opened car door He was trying to suggest that cyclists are required to keep clear, once a car door has been opened. Pretty dodgy hair-splitting to my way of thinking.

What..? Then I could leave my car doors open on the street all the time!

But how do they determine if the collision was with an opened or opening door?

Had this discussion with the husband of a colleague...... a police officer. Most disturbing to hear a serving police officer argue that often it is not the driver/passenger's fault if a cyclist hits an opened car door He was trying to suggest that cyclists are required to keep clear, once a car door has been opened. Pretty dodgy hair-splitting to my way of thinking.

I'm not surprised to hear anything that police officers say in relation to accidents. It seems to be to much effort for them to do anything other than jot down a few notes in their report. Try asking them to have a motorist charged with an offense and the response might be: "there were no witnesses". "Excuse me Constable but there were witnesses including a member of the police force who happened to be in the car behind the car that caused the impact""Well other witnesses said differently but they don't want to get involved""are you going to charge the driver with an offense?""no"

it helps to think of cops on the beat like the call centre jockey you speak to who has the problem solving skills of a 2 yr old and the motivation of a sloth. not all fit that bill, but some certainly do. elevate it to their mgr (s/sgt).

Please consider letting the ABC News 24 team know your views on this. They are on Twitter and on Facebook or you can make a formal complaint. Also the Managing Director of the ABC, Mark Scott is on Twitter as well.

Oh BTW the ABC will edit out any negative comments from its Facebook page.